Monistic Panentheism
-
Tay, first of all I'd like to say that I try to analyse all things philosophical from a strictly logical perspective (hence some of my rather 'crude' replies in this thread because I simply do not adhere to obfuscated thoughts). Now, on with it...
I can't argue with the answer, but I can point to a paradox of sorts. If the Hereafter is eternal, then we are infinite, however, according to this understanding, the infinity that we currently represent had a starting point and is thus rendered atleast partially finite. This leads to Nadia's question - How can a soul be infinite if it did not exist at some point? The easy answer would be, "Because God said so, and God can do anything." Is this really what the Qur'an is telling us?
Well, god having the ability to do 'anything' doesn't mean god can do 'the impossible'; it means god can do anything that is possible. If you dictate god as an entity that can do both the 'possible' and 'impossible' then there's no point in debating anything, and furthermore you create a logical contradiction within the attributes of god (if you want to read more about this I can link you to various sources which discuss this in detail). Thus the answer "because god says so" does not apply here, because infinite cannot be equated to 'partial infinity' or even the 'indefinite'. Infinite is self sustaining and indivisible and the fact that it is indivisible is what gives it its primary attribute of boundless.
Does Allah not ask us, via the Qur'an, to verify all information? How does one verify without a reference or similitude?
Apologies, I assumed "no" was enough for the question "can something come from nothing" since it is the fundemental axiom of all logical concepts.
What you'll find in nature is evidence that nature does not spontaneously spawn life nor does anything truly decay. Everything is constantly changing form. The universe is in a constant state of flux.
Agreed. However, that does not make the universe infinite. But yes, something can not come from nothing, it is logically inconsistent.
This brings to mind the problem I was having with the supposed covenant we made before birth. I think there's more to uncover here.
Like?
Is there any seperation between the carbon atoms in your body and the carbon atoms on, say, the planet Neptune?
For the sake of practicality I would say they are seperate because they are discreet entities but like I've said before, it depends on what level of detail you want to penetrate.
I would also like to add that nature is not continuous because then it creates a fundemental contradiction that should, if true, mean nothing exists. Why? Becuase if nature is continuous then one can divide, say, an atom into infinite parts and thus we would all be made of 'infinitely small' parts, with infinitely small meaning 0/undefined, thus we would be made of 'nothing'/'undefined'. When you're doing any sort of calculation in physics, if you yeild infinite as an answer that's a flag telling you that you are wrong. This is the fundemental problem of classical physics, it's the reason why it breaks down in the picoscopic world because it works with point particles as opposed to QM's more accurate discreet particles.
-
Peace Tay,
Nadia, I apologize if my post to Apple Pie was vague. It was a turning point for me, one which was long overdue, that resulted in my conscious effort to withdraw from any theological debate or even defense. For that matter, any discussion that I do not find either enlightening or entertaining, I am doing my utmost to avoid, despite my mind's practically insane desire to get involved in things. I didn't mean to sound as if I was leaving the forum. Hope that makes sense
Sometimes I feel the same, makes a lot of sense )
Excellent points in neo's post...this discussion cover some very interesting ground...much anticipation
-
Peace Neo,
Thanks for the heads-up on your technique.
You stated
Well, god having the ability to do 'anything' doesn't mean god can do 'the impossible'; it means god can do anything that is possible. If you dictate god as an entity that can do both the 'possible' and 'impossible' then there's no point in debating anything, and furthermore you create a logical contradiction within the attributes of god (if you want to read more about this I can link you to various sources which discuss this in detail). Thus the answer "because god says so" does not apply here, because infinite cannot be equated to 'partial infinity' or even the 'indefinite'. Infinite is self sustaining and indivisible and the fact that it is indivisible is what gives it its primary attribute of boundless.
I'm not sure which side of the fence you're on at this point. My "Because God says so" comment was rhetorical. Rather than getting lost in sidetracking, please answer the following...
You say that we are created by Allah. You also say that ithe nfinite cannot be equated to partial infinity or the indefinite. How do you describe the human soul? Is it infinite or finite?
My position is that the human soul is infinite, and was not created but is simply a metamorphasis of energy. I haven't worked out the logistics, and I may not ever be able to with a human mind, but this avenue seems the most likely, in my opinion.
Thanks,
Tay -
You say that we are created by Allah. You also say that ithe nfinite cannot be equated to partial infinity or the indefinite. How do you describe the human soul? Is it infinite or finite?
Rhetorical? Oops...didn't pick up on that.
Anywya, I'd have to say the soul, if it were to exist, would be finite.
My position is that the human soul is infinite, and was not created but is simply a metamorphasis of energy. I haven't worked out the logistics, and I may not ever be able to with a human mind, but this avenue seems the most likely, in my opinion.
Thanks,
TayWhat makes you think it's the most likely?
-
On the contrary sir Feynman was vehemently against the use of religion in scientific practices. He always maintained that his faith and his practice existed on two seperate realms. As with most notable scientists throughout history.
True. In that the practice of science and the practice of religion are different. I think the point is that science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive to the person who practices both.
No. Quantum physics accepts nothing on blind faith.
Quantum mechanics accepts practically everything on blind faith. Physicists accept things work the way they do without understanding exactly why.
They have theories about how and why things work, and from those, they develop equations that predict outcomes to a high degree of accuracy. Therefore, they have faith in their equations and methodologies without any proof that the theories or ideas behind those equations and methodologies are actually correct The math says so, the evidence says so, and the outcomes of experiments say so...but no no one really understands why.
When it comes to God, I see things the same way. I see evidence that God exists, and I count on my belief that God exists...beyond that, I cannot explain why or how.
Okay, I found the function. It's f(x)=1/x, x>1. As a series, Integrating around the x-axis from 1 to infinity, it is divergent.
But I had things backward...thanks to my aging memory. (I had it mixed up with a funnel that has both infinite surface and infinite volume.)
Anyway for the integral of f(x)=1/x...the surface of the 3D shape that can be plotted is infinite while the volume it contains is finite (equal to pi to be exact). According to my notes, I can fill up the object with pi amount of paint; however, I need an infinite amount of paint to cover the surface of the object.
Interestingly enough, the object is called "Gabriel's Horn." shock
-
Peace Neo,
I'd have to say the soul, if it were to exist, would be finite.
Fair enough. Would this then lead you to believe that the Hereafter is also finite?
What makes you think it's the most likely?
The example of nature, and the paradox of the alternative, as stated earlier.
Peace,
Tay -
True. In that the practice of science and the practice of religion are different. I think the point is that science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive to the person who practices both.
I never said anyone who's a scientist is an atheist by default. I simply said one cannot use science to cover their faith is all.
Quantum mechanics accepts practically everything on blind faith. Physicists accept things work the way they do without understanding exactly why.
They don't 'understand'? What are you talking about? Which part of quantum mechanics (most of which is observable) escapes the 'understanding' (I use this word loosely here, since it is not a necessity) of modern science?
They have theories about how and why things work, and from those, they develop equations that predict outcomes to a high degree of accuracy. ]Therefore, they have faith in their equations and methodologies without any proof that the theories or ideas behind those equations and methodologies are actually correct The math says so, the evidence says so, and the outcomes of experiments say so...but no no one really understands why.
That's how all science works. But the one thing that differentiates science from faith is that science will never be able to accept anything without empirical evidence (as seen by the 'long time' it took for people to fully accept Einstein's notion of grabity). And they don't really have 'faith' in their equations and methodologies - this was the case some 50 years ago (and only because it agreed with observed reality, thus they had to conform) but now there's conclusive 'reasoning' behind said equations and methodologies as well. However, that isn't to suggest that science knows everything - it never claimed to. Not knowing is not the same as accepting something on blind faith. IMO, science is limited and faith/religion is 'not' (because science is limited to our 5 senses, whereas faith/religion is only limited by our mind), so that itself is an ode to science and religion's incompatibility.
Okay, I found the function. It's f(x)=1/x, x>1. As a series, Integrating around the x-axis from 1 to infinity, it is divergent.
But I had things backward...thanks to my aging memory. (I had it mixed up with a funnel that has both infinite surface and infinite volume.)
Anyway for the integral of f(x)=1/x...the surface of the 3D shape that can be plotted is infinite while the volume it contains is finite (equal to pi to be exact). According to my notes, I can fill up the object with pi amount of paint; however, I need an infinite amount of paint to cover the surface of the object.
Interestingly enough, the object is called "Gabriel's Horn." shock
Pi is an irrational number and is 'infinite' in its own right (it shares many qualities with 'infinite', such as undefinable, not properly divisible, it is used as a limit, etc.); anyway, that makes sense because I'm guessing the 3D graph of the function would expand out to an asymptote thereby filling an 'infinitely small' region (and thus keeping a 'finite' volume, even if it's not an exact volume). My counter to this point would be that 1. nature isn't continuous (I explained why before, because I knew something like this would come up) and 2. This analogy isn't sufficient to explain a soul which is said to be infinite, but enclosed within a body which is finite. Nonetheless, gabriel's horn does sound interesting and I'll be using some matlab to check it out some more. Thanks for the heads up.
-
Fair enough. Would this then lead you to believe that the Hereafter is also finite?
To answer this would be purely speculative on my, and everyone else's part. However, I believe an educated guess would be that the hereafter would be in 'god's realm' - but I can't prove that with any level of certainty.
The example of nature, and the paradox of the alternative, as stated earlier.
Allah creating the soul and the soul being indefinite isn't paradoxical. I merely said that god can't do the impossible to avoid future encounteres where we justify anything by saying "but god can do whatever" is all.
hus the answer "because god says so" does not apply here, because infinite cannot be equated to 'partial infinity' or even the 'indefinite'. Infinite is self sustaining and indivisible and the fact that it is indivisible is what gives it its primary attribute of boundless.
I can see why you'd be confused here as I didn't phrase myself clearly. What I meant was, strictly logically speaking the indefinite is not the same thing as the infinite. Therefure the soul, by definition, is indefinite and not infinite/eternal and thus saying "god made the soul infinite because god can do anything" does not suffice. However, it's perfectly logically reasonable for god to create souls and for the souls to be henceforth indefinite.
-
Peace all,
I would have some questions
Is it correct to define the soul as the part in us that "knows", that has memory, like a hard drive, storing everything about the person's experiences? Is it "ar-rooh" or "an-nafs"?
What would then be the mind? the CPU (central processing unit)?
--
-
Peace all,
I would have some questions
Is it correct to define the soul as the part in us that "knows", that has memory, like a hard drive, storing everything about the person's experiences? Is it "ar-rooh" or "an-nafs"?
What would then be the mind? the CPU (central processing unit)?
--
No, the brain stores memories and by extension, experience.
-
Peace Neo,
To answer this would be purely speculative on my, and everyone else's part.
Of course, and I have no problem with speculation considering the topic.
I believe an educated guess would be that the hereafter would be in 'god's realm' - but I can't prove that with any level of certainty.
Do you perceive this realm as seperate from our current existence? Perhaps a parallel?
Allah creating the soul and the soul being indefinite isn't paradoxical. I merely said that god can't do the impossible to avoid future encounteres where we justify anything by saying "but god can do whatever" is all...it's perfectly logically reasonable for god to create souls and for the souls to be henceforth indefinite.
I understand your position, I think. Indefinite, by definition, is undecided. It is a "may or may not" description. Is this what you feel the Qur'an portrays regarding the Hereafter? Do you feel we may or may not live eternally?
Please understand, and perhaps this is an unnecessary disclaimer, but I am not dissecting your argument, only trying to get to the bottom of it to further my own understanding. As the Qur'an states, we should listen to all angles and choose the one that fits best.
So far, I've read nothing in the Qur'an that states or even eludes to the Hereafter as anything less than eternal. The only indefinite I've come across is how we choose to spend the Hereafter bliss or agony.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Someone,
The mind is the thought processor - the CPU. And, to a certain extent, the mind is also the hard drive. It files away experiences and refers to those experiences, in addition to projecting those experiences into the future. It is the vehicle through which you experience this physical realm.
The soul is the observer of the mind. It is the part of you that silently witnesses the mind's dialogue. This is the real "you" - the infinite - the part that is connected to all of life.
Peace,
Tay -
Do you perceive this realm as seperate from our current existence? Perhaps a parallel?
God's realm is most certainly seperate, but parallel? I would say not, because that would imply god's realm is adhering to our realm (for example "parallel" lines have the same slope) and because our realm is bound by time , that would contradict god's realm which resides in eternity.
I think, in the context of this argument, 'indefinite' can be defined as that which has a start but no forseeable end.
Is this what you feel the Qur'an portrays regarding the Hereafter? Do you feel we may or may not live eternally?
Living 'eternally' in the hereafter implies a start, the start being "here". A soul can, through symantic shuffling, live "eternally" after the creation of said soul - in that case the word "eternal" would denote "forever onwards" (I believe this is a misuse of the word on a logical level, but the english dictionary seems to disagree with me P). Anyhoo, I don't see this as a contradiction (living 'forever onwards' in an eternal realm) because our notions of logic would never apply to eternity itself (that is to say, we can't penetrate eternity with logic, but we can use eternity in logic, because it's a rational state of being). So, with the logical derivations out of the way, I'd say that we live indefinitely in the hereafter if the hereafter is god's realm. However, I don't know if the hereafter is god's realm or not - but I think it is.
-
Peace Tay,
The mind is the thought processor - the CPU. And, to a certain extent, the mind is also the hard drive. It files away experiences and refers to those experiences, in addition to projecting those experiences into the future. It is the vehicle through which you experience this physical realm.
The soul is the observer of the mind. It is the part of you that silently witnesses the mind's dialogue. This is the real "you" - the infinite - the part that is connected to all of life.
The CPU is likened to the brain. I can hardly see how the CPU is likened to the mind.
Anyway, what is the state of the mind when the human being is conceived? Is there any experience filed away for it to refer to in the future at that time? When were those experiences filed away for the first time, if any? In other words, when do the mind come into existence. And how would you know all that? When does the soul come in the picture to be the silent observer of the mind? Do they come as pairs? And besides all this, does the mind linger on even after death? Again how would you know all that?
Anwar Azim
-
I never said anyone who's a scientist is an atheist by default. I simply said one cannot use science to cover their faith is all.
Noted. I was simply clarifying my own point.
They don't 'understand'? What are you talking about? Which part of quantum mechanics (most of which is observable) escapes the 'understanding' (I use this word loosely here, since it is not a necessity) of modern science?
Pretty much all of quantum mechanics escapes understanding. It is the area of physics that defies logic and "reason." Outcomes are observable, yes. But understood, no, not really. As you said, understanding is not a necessity. It is enough that the equations work and produce results, because the empircal evidence is quite bizarre.
Relativity is different. It makes much more sense than quantum mechanics. We could wait until we landed on the moon, then do the experiments and see that things worked the way they should according to Einstein's theories. Relativity is elegant; quantum mechanics is messy and nonsensical.
Pi is an irrational number and is 'infinite' in its own right (it shares many qualities with 'infinite', such as undefinable, not properly divisible, it is used as a limit, etc.); anyway, that makes sense because I'm guessing the 3D graph of the function would expand out to an asymptote thereby filling an 'infinitely small' region (and thus keeping a 'finite' volume, even if it's not an exact volume). My counter to this point would be that 1. nature isn't continuous (I explained why before, because I knew something like this would come up) and 2. This analogy isn't sufficient to explain a soul which is said to be infinite, but enclosed within a body which is finite. Nonetheless, gabriel's horn does sound interesting and I'll be using some matlab to check it out some more. Thanks for the heads up.
Since f(x)=1/x, the asymptote is avoided by not using x=0. The graph only becomes interesting when you look at it three-dimensionally as it rotates around the x-axis. Or y-axis, if you prefer.
And be careful...pi is pi. Irrational though it may be, it is not infinite. I understand what you're saying...just watch your language around a purist! lol
As to the rest of your point, I'll leave that to Tay. He is far more informed and better able to discuss this matter than I am. I only had a passing thought about Gabriel's Horn when I first heard about it in class years ago, and I didn't quite remember the paradox correctly when I first mentioned it here. Plus, math classes were bad about not having any time for lingering spiritual thoughts. Those pesky differential equations took all my concentration.
-
Noted. I was simply clarifying my own point.
Fair enough.
Pretty much all of quantum mechanics escapes understanding. It is the area of physics that defies logic and "reason." Outcomes are observable, yes. But understood, no, not really. As you said, understanding is not a necessity. It is enough that the equations work and produce results, because the empircal evidence is quite bizarre.
It doesn't really defy reason if you think about it. One interpretation of Schrodinger's Cat states that we never quite know whether the cat is dead or alive until we open the box. This, coupled with Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty is thought to insinuate that reality is 'nothing' until observed and even when observed we don't really know anything. This is not true. All SC (Schrodinger's Cat, that's the abbreviation I'll use from now) and UP (Uncertainty Principle) implies is that 1. we cannot measure a quantum-entity's velocity/momentum/energy-content with absolute certainty concurrently due to its inherent claustrophobia, and 2. States can only be measured when observed - this point doesn't go against logical reasoning at all. Also, it is worthwhile to note that these rules are relevant only in a picoscopic world and in the macroscopic world they don't mean much of anything since the various discrepancies caused by point 1. balance out. This is why a tank doesn't suddenly disappear.
Relativity is different. It makes much more sense than quantum mechanics. We could wait until we landed on the moon, then do the experiments and see that things worked the way they should according to Einstein's theories. Relativity is elegant; quantum mechanics is messy and nonsensical.
Actually, without relativity, we could never land on the moon. Also, relativity does get REALLY tricky when it is put side to side with Newton's theories of gravity. The disparity may not be as large as QM and ToR but it is still quite a large discrepancy.
"Elegance" and its converse are in the eyes of the beholder. p
Since f(x)=1/x, the asymptote is avoided by not using x=0. The graph only becomes interesting when you look at it three-dimensionally as it rotates around the x-axis. Or y-axis, if you prefer.
And be careful...pi is pi. Irrational though it may be, it is not infinite. I understand what you're saying...just watch your language around a purist! lol
As to the rest of your point, I'll leave that to Tay. He is far more informed and better able to discuss this matter than I am. I only had a passing thought about Gabriel's Horn when I first heard about it in class years ago, and I didn't quite remember the paradox correctly when I first mentioned it here. Plus, math classes were bad about not having any time for lingering spiritual thoughts. Those pesky differential equations took all my concentration.
I don't quite see it as a mathematical paradox because the volume of the incasing being pi makes sense to me. A function (with a surface area that is infinite) who's volume reduces to an irrational number does so beacuse the volume under the graph approaches 0, but never quite reaches it (as it gets closer and closer to the asymptote). Hence, the volume isn't a real number because the volume can never be calculated. To call it a finite number would be inaccurate, however one could say it has a finite value (or could one? That's a whole other debate...).
And yes, I should have said "pi", not "Pi".
-
Peace Anwar,
You stated
The CPU is likened to the brain. I can hardly see how the CPU is likened to the mind.
As Neo stated, they are one and the same.
Anyway, what is the state of the mind when the human being is conceived? Is there any experience filed away for it to refer to in the future at that time? When were those experiences filed away for the first time, if any? In other words, when do the mind come into existence.
It is my understanding that the mind/brain, just as all life forms in this physical realm, must evolove. It must learn to learn, if you will. The brain begins developing in the early embryonic stages. It wouldn't surprise me if an ocassional person had some memories of being in the womb. There is no concrete time set for learning to begin, although I believe psychologists generally agree that children begin storing long-term memories around 3-4 years old. Forgive me if my memory has failed me here. wink
And how would you know all that?
Me personally?? Reading. Most of this mind-stuff is psych 101. The soul-stuff is from the Qur'an, experience, and more reading, as well as just pondering, trying to make sense of it all.
When does the soul come in the picture to be the silent observer of the mind?
That seems to be the question we're all working on. I don't know bro. Initially, I believed that God said "Be" and the soul was created. Now I'm thinking there's more to it. I'm thinking god said "Be" and the human body & mind were created or evolved, and the soul inhabiting this physical entity is just a part of the process.
Let me ask you Do you recall making a covenant with God previous to this life? This would help tremendously.
Do they come as pairs? And besides all this, does the mind linger on even after death? Again how would you know all that?
It seems you're getting testy here. I hope I'm mistaken. In any case, no, the mind does not linger because the mind is made up of cells that decay once the soul has departed. How do I know the mind is not lingering? I project the future of those cells as they become compost, digested by worms and insects, which in turn are digested by birds and reptiles and other insects, and so on and so forth. if the mind lingers on, it is lingering in the bodies of literally billions of organisms.
So what's your view? Please explain your understanding of the mind, the brain, the body, the soul, and the Hereafter, so we may learn from each other.
Thanks,
Tay -
Peace Neo,
Thank you for being so articulate in your explanation. I understand you loud and clear and admit that I cannot find fault in your reasoning at this point. I will, however, not concede that humans had a starting point just yet. My reasons are somewhat fanciful when put into words but they are starting to come into focus in my own mind.
Inshallah, I'll be able to put forward my understanding shortly.
Peace,
Tay